ReviewCureus2025
Clinical Scoring Systems for the Assessment of Continence Following Anorectal Malformation Repair: A Comprehensive Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of fecal continence and bowel function scoring systems following anorectal malformation repair: a systematic review.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Pooled it
- Comparative analysis of three fecal continence scoring systems in anorectal malformations: inter-score agreement and prognostic factors.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite advancements in surgical techniques and improved survival rates for anorectal malformation (ARM) patients, the lack of a standardized way for assessing bowel function and quality of life remains a challenge. Variability in scoring outcomes exists between systems due to inconsistencies in criteria and precise definitions, such as soiling, constipation, and continence. While older tools lack proper validation, newer scales, including the Rintala and Baylor Continence Scale (BCS), offer more structured assessment. There is also a growing acceptance of the need to incorporate quality of life measures, as ARM patients often encounter social and psychological challenges beyond physical symptoms. Multidisciplinary follow-up and age-adjusted evaluations are recommended to enhance long-term outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.